Beyond Organizational Boundaries

Details

Rawlston Pompey

Tuesday, 17 July 2012 02:30

By Rawlston Pompey

Universally, Law enforcement is part of the formalized structure in civil society. It is this agency within the Criminal Justice system that is charged with the maintenance of law and order.

Its primary function is to “…Protect and Serve” the citizens. Apart from maintaining the peace, law and order, their role involved bringing perpetrators to justice. This is done through the process of arrest/detention and ultimately, prosecution of offenders. Such role, undoubtedly, has placed them in a rather unique position, as “…many citizens consider the functions of the Police in everyday life to extend beyond their law enforcement and peacekeeping roles. Research has shown that “…the lower classes, in particular, call upon them to perform a variety of services; …they depend upon Police assistance in times of trouble, crises and indecision” [Reiss: 1971:63].  This is true and explains the multi-faceted role of the Police and that which has come to be known as the “…Policeman’s lot is not an easy one.”

Death Row Inmates to be Re-sentenced Antigua St. John's - Six men who have been on death row in excess of 12 years are scheduled to be re-sentenced.... read more

MULTI-FACETED ROLE
It is the multi-faceted role that in the vast majority of situations constantly brings members of Law enforcement into direct contact with the public. Invariably, many of these contacts have, for diverse reasons, resulted in misunderstanding, thereby provoking hostility that had often resulted in the breeding of contempt and resentment. Then there were the contending “…avoidable and inescapable conflicts.” For the most part, these were occasioned either by overly aggressive, insensitive and/or tactless approaches and the inevitability of “…offensive/defensive” human responses. When these incidents or situations occurred, they had the effect of inducing misconception, suspicion and fear and arousing hostility in the   citizenry.

EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES
Thus, the impact of these incidents had been known to have reduced Law enforcement ability to work collaboratively with the community in solving problems promptly and amicably. For these and other reasons, attempting to discharge their duties professionally, effectively and efficiently, many personnel have been exposed to greater difficulties than were necessary. While citizens were seen to have crossed the demarcation line for socially acceptable behavior, civic pride and responsibilities, Law enforcement personnel were seen to have stepped “…Beyond Organizational Boundaries,” breaching organizational rules and regulations and besmirching its image and reputation.

CORE VALUES
Every organization has its own cultural philosophy. Equally as much, each has its core values, precepts or rules and regulatory Codes to govern the conduct of its members. Value is said to be “…a way of being or acting which a person or community recognizes as ideal and renders desirable or worthy of respect the persons or the behavior to which it is attributed.” Value, therefore, “…inspires judgment and equally, behavior.” Notwithstanding its culture and “…CORE VALUES,” fundamental to these are the Codes that restrict or forbid conduct inconsistent with good discipline with stipulated consequences for non-compliance. In most formal and disciplined organizations, such as Law Enforcement, the Code of conduct was designed to ensure that members display an exceptionally high standard of discipline. This was to be reflected both in their “…private and official capacity.” Thus, personnel are required to lead a life that is unsullied and exemplary to all. This has been all part of the “…Core Values” of most formal and disciplined organizations. Therefore, the behavioral aspect and professionalism must fit the vision of the organization and meeting public expectation.

ROGUISH BEHAVIOR
Occasionally, deviancy was seen to have crept into Law enforcement organizations across the globe. Invariably, this was attribute by a small minority of members, described as “…rogue cops.” Frequently, these members had been the ones who had cause the image of an organization to be so tarnished as to give the unmistakable impression that it was all part of the “…cultural philosophy.” They have also been known to have caused irreparable damage to its reputation, bringing it into “…disrepute” by conduct either bordering indiscipline or through calculated and irrefutable acts of criminality. It could hardly be denied that many regional Police Services  had been able to escape their unwelcome share of bad publicity through the alleged “…ROGUISH BEHAVIOR” of a seemingly misguided few.

REACTING TO EFFECTS
It would, therefore, make good sense that the general Law enforcement attitude toward its personnel, even for isolated and seemingly minor infractions of rules must be addressed. “…Frequently, people have an ambivalent attitude toward rules. They agree the overall principle should be adhered to, but for various reasons see themselves as exceptions, or believe in particular circumstances the rule is either inapplicable or inappropriate [Ellison: 1985:2]. Invariably, administrators have developed tendencies in “…REACTING TO EFFECTS” as opposed to ascertaining and addressing “…CAUSES.” When these were allowed to fester, they had produced regrettable and avoidable consequences to the citizens, personnel, organizations and communities as a whole.



DISPELLING BELIEFS
Clearly, the personnel who had found themselves stepping “…Beyond Organizational Boundaries,” had given the public and members of the wider community good reasons to believe that such had been the norm of the organization and reflected a marked shift in its cultural philosophy, vision, set goals and priorities, thereby provoking public abhorrence and citizen’s mistrust. It is, therefore, of critical importance that Law enforcement, its personnel and administrators work vigorously toward dispelling the “…widely held beliefs that Policemen are of doubtful honesty and integrity” [Banton: 1984:78a] and that most of the crimes being perpetrated against the hapless victims in society were being committed by their numbers.

THE PROFESSIONALS
As specially trained professionals, Law enforcement personnel are charged with the responsibility for invoking the criminal justice process. Thus, they have the unenviable task of regulating citizen’s conduct that in the process, had affected fundamental freedoms and liberties of the individual. The United Nations protocol on human rights as well as the Constitutional provisions speak to “…protection” of those fundamentals. The enforcement process, even when actions considered were initiated with noble intentions, had created situations that appeared most vexing to law breakers, equally as much as it had been for Law enforcement. Such was inescapable. Nonetheless, such protection was guaranteed only to the extent that their enjoyment did not infringe the rights and freedoms of others.

QUALITY OVER QUANTITY
While the professional value of personnel may be centered on “…QUALITY” as opposed to those of “…QUANTITY,” overzealous administrators may also consider implications for reflections on leadership capabilities; …managerial skills and ability to command and control. Philosophically, however, it might be better to have two hundred good cops than five hundred who are prone to deviate from their professional calling to be engaged in criminality. Additionally, administrators may also be cognizant of consequences for organizational effectiveness, success and/or failure; …team building and mentoring; …camaraderie among personnel, public trust and confidence. Surely, ridding agencies of personnel of pathetic behaviors had been the least of the citizen’s worries as long as the “…crooked and the wicked” are effectively dealt with according to the dictates of law for their protection, safety and security.

CHECKS AND BALANCES
While citizens may argue that justice and fair-play may be considered the cornerstone principle of a free society and of free men and women, it must be accepted that even in free societies, there must be “…checks and balances” with the requisite regulatory measures to curb the unpredictable, reckless and/or lawless and deviant behaviors of depraved individuals. These were to be found in every strata of society, ranging from the petty thieves, muggers and the “…white collar criminals.” Such had been the causes for and “…cases” of Law enforcement. For instance, in ensuring that Law enforcement personnel did not step out “…Beyond Organizational Boundaries,” Parliament had empowered the Minister responsible for National Security to make Disciplinary regulations under the Police Act, Chapter 330 [Jurisdiction Antigua and Barbuda].

ORGANIZATIONAL BREACHES
These were intended to keep in line, personnel who might be tempted to commit “…Organizational Breaches,” with established procedures for Tribunals to address that which was purely “…disciplinary.” The most serious include offences from “…Discreditable Conduct, Disobedience to Insubordination, Corrupt Practice, including Unlawful and Unnecessary Exercise of Authority to Neglecting Duty and Incurring Debt ‘…without any reasonable prospect or intention’ of paying same.” Punishments range from “…Dismissal, fine, reduction in rank, remuneration to a simple reprimand or caution. The consequential penalties are dependent upon the nature, gravity and frequency of the breaches committed, including any mitigating factors or circumstances special to the particular offence.



PARLIAMENTARY ANTICIPATION
Parliament anticipated that some Law enforcement personnel may take their conduct far removed from good discipline and “…Beyond Organizational Boundaries.” It anticipated that some might be disposed to take it to another level-that of the commission of CRIME. Interestingly, a “…Conviction on a criminal offence” also constitutes a breach of the Disciplinary Code; that is to say “…if a member of the Force has been found guilty by a Court of Law or of a Criminal Offence” [Disciplinary Offences: Vol. 12: (t) PA 330]. Sections 32 and 33 create several “…Criminal Offences” including “…Exciting Mutiny, Sedition, Failing to suppress Riot and Striking Superior Officers and Causing Disaffection among Personnel.”

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
The punishments range from a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars to six months or three years imprisonment for the most serious offence (Sedition). Section 36 of the Police Act provides for the arrest of Law enforcement personnel who (a) “…commits ANY offence punishable on Summary conviction (Magistrate or on Indictment (Judge/Jury) and dealt with according to law.” Thus, the ordinary “…run of the mill” criminal offences committed by personnel stepping out of line or “…Beyond Organizational Boundaries,” are dealt with in the manner likened to any other citizen as may have been seen in recent times.

EXPERIENCE
Experience has taught that many untenable situations involving the citizenry and Law enforcement were occasioned either by incompetency, inexperience or insensitivity on the part of Law enforcement personnel or through misunderstanding or misconception on the part of the citizens. It is well known that attitude and behavior change dramatically, equally as much as relationships, individuals, communities and societies change. They change not necessarily for the sake of change, but as needs, situations and circumstances dictated. These changes had been known to be contentions and provocative. They had come with antipathy or animosity and had been known to have led to physical confrontations. In these circumstances, Law enforcement intervention is inevitable.

RESPONDING TO CONFLICTS
Law enforcement know that in responding to “…conflict-filled scenes or situations,” such must be approached with utmost caution, civility, tactfully and with the appropriate use of discretion. Such approach is particularly important, since every action on their part has a bearing on the relationship with the public. For in an environment where attitude and behavior, combined with the complex nature of police work, “…all hell is likely to break loose,” if offending and aggrieved parties, rightly or wrongly suspect or detect partiality or favoritism in the manner matters were handled or mishandled. Thus, Law enforcement personnel must of necessity focus not only in settling conflicts and/or disputes, but must endeavor not to get entangled and must endeavour always to instill confidence and trust in the public. Hence, it is without debate that this must be so, since “…in times of rapidly rising crime, only a good public reputation will in the long term enable the Police to deal effectively with crime and other problems” [Blake :1989: p11].

CHALLENGES AHEAD
Law enforcement must be constantly mindful of the “…challenges ahead” and it is incumbent upon administrators in creating an enabling environment that personnel may not stray “…Beyond Organizational Boundaries” that has the potential for arrests, embarrassment, pain to their organizations and its membership. Hence, it is for this reason that proper supervisory mechanisms and /or monitoring systems are essential to arresting organizational deviancy and in the wider community widespread acts of criminality among members. Thus, the reduction of crime among personnel and the creation of a safe environment and society must take precedence over other administrative considerations. Law enforcement must also be cognizant that erosion of public confidence in its ability to vigorously invoke the criminal justice processes against those who may have flouted the law with or without impunity. It is to be borne in mind that omissions on their part may have adverse consequences, not only on the quality of life of the law-abiding citizens, but also for law and order.

IDEALISM v ENTHUSIASM
While “…IDEALISM and/or ENTHUSIASM” may suggest that “…corrupt cops” may be eradicated from Law enforcement agencies through arrests and due judicial and/or disciplinary processes, prudence dictates that Law enforcement administrators must be acutely mindful of the “…possible demoralizing effect, if not the debilitating impact such may have on morale, with the potential for propelling otherwise honest, law abiding and conformist members into a state of apathy, discontent, divisiveness and/or  disaffection. There was no doubt that such may have been the considerations given in organizations not akin to law enforcement, yet where accusations of malfeasance were rife. Former Commissioner of Police, Wright Fitzgerald George CVO, QPM, CPM had often remarked, clearly referring to the role of Foreman of an empanelled Jury that “…The Jury must be kept together.”

Taking the Mickey Out of Spencer The Arena Laffs is coming back to life. Here is a video just for laughs taking the mickey out of PM Baldwin Spencer in the Wadadli Power plant Press C... read more

CONCLUSION
In achieving set goals and objectives Law enforcement must demonstrate by their words, deeds, actions and behavior that they are worthy of the citizen’s respect, support, trust, confidence and cooperation. Hence, recognizing and respecting their human dignity and worth and responding promptly and serving them responsibly and professionally, may augur well for the type of relations necessary in the fight against crime and violence. Law enforcement must also know that shaping the partnership and changing public perceptions, necessarily require effective police/community relations practices. These are pre-requisites and may be seen as the vanguard in the promotion of citizen’s trust, mutual respect and cooperation. Consequently, the task is that of Law enforcement administrators in endeavouring to keep in check, personnel with the propensity to venture “…BEYOND ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES,” thereby tarnishing the image and reputation of the organization to the extent of sullying the honesty and integrity of the more loyal, devoted, committed, responsible and well disciplined personnel.  

• < Prev
• Next >